| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Date: | 2011-11-30 16:09:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1322669300-sup-8099@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 30 12:53:42 -0300 2011:
> A bigger issue is that once you think about more than one kind of check,
> it becomes apparent that we might need some user-specifiable options to
> control which checks are applied. And I see no provision for that here.
> This is not something we can add later, at least not without breaking
> the API for the check function --- and if we're willing to break API,
> why not just add some more parameters to the validator and avoid having
> a second function?
How about
CHECK (parse, names=off) FUNCTION foobar(a, b, c)
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-11-30 16:09:55 | Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-11-30 16:06:02 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |